BHASKARAN PILLAI N Vs. STATE OF KERALA
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BHASKARAN PILLAI N
STATE OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions were teachers in Government Schools, who were placed under suspension by orders dated 29 3 1955, pending disposal of C. C. No. 16 of 1955, on the file of the 1st Class Magistrate's Court, Alwaye. The two petitioners herein were the accused in the said case. On 28 1 1957, the case ended in acquittal of the accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt. They applied for reinstatement, which was ordered by proceedings of the Director of Public Instruction dated 8 3 1960, a copy of which has been produced as Ext. P1 in O. P. No. 2254 of 1965. By the said proceedings, it was ordered that as the petitioner (in O. P. No. 2254 of 1965) had not been honourably acquitted he may be given subsistence allowance from the date of his suspension till the date of his rejoining at certain rates shown in the order. A similar order was passed in the case of the petitioner in O. P. No. 2509 of 1965. The petitioners applied to the Director of Public Instruction for payment of full salary and allowances from the date of suspension to the date of re-joining after reinstatement. Not getting any response, they applied to the Government. Their requests were declined by Government proceedings filed as Ext. P-3 in O. P. No. 2554 of 1965 and as Ext. P-4 in O. P. No. 2509 of 1965. The order is one, common to both the petitioners. It is this order that is sought to be quashed in these O. Ps.
(2.) The withholding of entire salary and allowances and the disbursement of subsistence allowance at rates ordered by the Director of Public Instruction was justified under the orders impugned by reference to sub clause (ii) of clause (b) of Art.132 of the Travancore Service Regulations.
(3.) Art.132 (b) (ii) of the Travancore Service Regulations reads as follows:
"132 (b) x x x x
If the suspension of an officer as a penalty for misconduct is upon re-consideration or appeal held to have been unjustifiable or not wholly justifiable, or if an officer dismissed from office or suspended pending enquiry into his alleged mis-conduct is, after enquiry, or upon reconsideration or appeal, reinstated, then the revising or appellate authority may grant to the officer, for the period of his absence from duty:
(i) If the officer is honourably acquitted an allowance equal to the full salary to which he would have been entitled if he had continued to hold the appointment from which he was dismissed; and also by an order to be separately recorded any conveyance, local or other allowance which be may have been in receipt of prior to his suspension or dismissal.
(ii) Otherwise, an allowance equal to such proportion of the full salary as aforesaid as the revising or appellate authority may deem expedient.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.